Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27531732›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Occupational Therapy in HomEcare Re-ablement Services (OTHERS): results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Phillip J Whitehead, Marion F Walker, Ruth H Parry, Zaid Latif, Ian D McGeorge, Avril E R Drummond

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Use of the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) in research studies: an international scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Publication Trends in Reablement - A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Phillip J WhiteheadSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1310-4020
Marion F WalkerSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ruth H ParrySchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Zaid LatifNottingham City Council, Nottingham, UK.
Ian D McGeorgeAbsoluteco, Nottingham, UK.
Avril E R DrummondSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2012-05-131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to test the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention targeted at activities of daily living (ADL), delivered by an occupational therapist, in homecare reablement.

designFeasibility parallel group RCT.

settingSingle-site local authority homecare reablement service.

participantsPeople referred for homecare reablement with ability to consent. Exclusion criteria were as follows: inability to speak English, receiving other community therapy services, needing two or more to assist transfer and receiving end-of-life care. CONTROL: 'Usual care' was 6 weeks of homecare reablement delivered by social care workers (no routine health professional input).

interventionA targeted ADL programme, delivered by an occupational therapist incorporating goal setting, teaching/practising techniques, equipment/adaptations and provision of advice/support. This was in addition to usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, intervention delivery, attrition and suitability and sensitivity of outcome measures. Participant outcomes were personal and extended ADL, quality of life, falls and use of health and social care services.

results30 participants were recruited, 15 to each arm, which was 60% of those eligible. Data from 22 (73%) were analysed at 6 months. Of the 15 participants, 13 (86%) received the intervention and were able to set one or more ADL goals. There were improvements from baseline in both groups, although overall improvements were greater in the occupational therapy (OT) intervention group. The biggest threat to feasibility was a change in service configuration during the trial, involving additional occupational therapy input, affecting usual care and recruitment.

conclusionsDespite the service reconfiguration, it was feasible to recruit and retain participants, deliver the intervention and collect outcome data that were responsive to change. The choice of primary outcome measure remains unclear. A further powered study is feasible and warranted; however, the design will require careful consideration because of ongoing national changes in service configurations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21710246; Results.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleFrailtyHome Care ServicesHumansMaleMental DisordersMusculoskeletal DiseasesNervous System DiseasesOccupational TherapyActivities of Daily LivingHomecare Re-ablementOccupational TherapyPreventionSocial Care

Identifiers

PMID27531732
PMCPMC5013368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.